Just before I dive in. I am thankful for you bothering to reply to me Crashfrog. I can appreciate from your perspective this must be at the very least frustrating. So in a way I'm sorry for what I'm gonna do - put forward some more of my thoughts based on your responses...
quote:
No, not really. It's born out by study after study.
This a very compelling point. But then as you pointed out before, God is not an entity that can be modelled. God is not a natural law. All you can know of God is what he reveals to you. I appreciate the implication of this - that to someone who believes that scientifically non-verifiable ideas/entities are a waste of time, God is irrelevant, existing or not. Such thinking could be summed up by the statement, "A statement/idea is meaningless unless it is imperically or analytically verifiable". Does this sum up your life philosophy? If so then I must tell you then that your life philosophy declares itself to be meaningless. If the statement is true then it is meaningless - unable to be true or false. This is not to say that I think you should believe anything. More to suggest there is more than science can reach.
But I do agree with some of what you said in those statements:
quote:
Apparently there's no way to get God to do anything
Obviously - if there was you'd supersede God which would be the greatest disproof of God ever. The Christian stance is "God's will be done".
As for knowing his will on a subject. As before you can only know of God what he reveals to you. This is the use of the Bible. The Bible is not a technical manual which you seem to analyse it as. (i.e. The creation aspect is about 1 page long and pretty vague - the Bible isn't really about how it's about why). The old testiment is seems only really to set a scene/basis and show the prophecy of Jesus. The new testiment is more the applicable edification (I realise this is a christian view point of this). Given the learning available in the new testiment, reading original texts (with a good dictionary) and reading them in the context of the time and situation. You can come to very clear conclusions on issues most the time. If God has said it once why should he say it again?
For instance you bring up the case of "gay marriage". I'm gonna whip up a quick biblical/historical/modernly observable argument - probably not that theologically great but it does make you think.. well me think...
In general the gay christian community have got round all the biblical texts by just disowning it. The bible is clear on what is right here but I'm more interested in this more subtle point. It is backed up by historical evidence from all over the place and the state of affairs today. In Corinth the situation at the time 'Paul' wrote them the letter, Corinthians, sexuality was the major theme of the day (As in most Eras). You think we had a sexual liberation in the 60s? They were having orgies left, right and centre. Gay was social norm. As was paedophilia. You would be expected to have a few wives/concubines, a gay lover and fun down the local brothel. Yet they gave it up to become christians? Why? Christianity was not much of a physical force at this point - if you believe they were forced into it, the Romans were chopping up christians with no remorse and (as you pointed out) not seeing any Godly smiting for it. And the people had heard threats of Gods before - there was an abundance of choice as far as Spiritualism and God worship goes. What did they find in christianity that made it spread so fast? Remember this was a pleasure seeking society. Did everyone just go insane? or is there something in christianity that managed to intice everyone from all the other very REAL 'happiness sources' of the day? By embracing homosexuality or any sexuality when forced to choose between it and a relationship with God shows a rejection of God. Cutting you off from whatever made everyone in Corinth (and the rest of Greece and the Roman empire) give it all up.
I do not defend the entire present "organised" church of today. In many ways it has lost the point in politics and perversion of the faith. The christianity that I'm interested in is that which turned the great Roman empire from christian killers/haters to christians themselves. That is a case study for you Crashfrog. I'm sure a mind great as yours could give me a good explanation for why such a massive turn around happened. As a side note - just to put it in perspective, Paul puts homosexuality on a plane with being greedy. Christians hate sins not sinners - we believe we are all sinners. That was just in case you believe I'm a pig-headed homophobe... You may still do... But my friends who are gay would probably disagree... at least a little...
Anyway! Other stuff!
Your "Trivial" disproof of God. I agree with your definition of God in general terms:
quote:
The God you're talking about is both moral and powerful
Can I add "Creator God" to that and "above all". As in that he/she/it was just there always. So not to worry about causality arguments, just as I suspect you believe the universe has always existed, not sure how well that fits with the second law of Thermodynamics... Actually given that I don't know what you believe... Sorry about that presumption..
You said that God does not intervene when moral injustice is about to occur and therefore is either immoral or powerless. You used the example of not preventing a murder being immoral. I'm gonna suggest a slightly more complex model and ask what you would do?
Suppose there is man A and he is about to kill man B who in turn is about to kill 100 psycho-paedophiles. You are God. Do you intervene? Do you want to? Will you just stop A? This a fairly simple moral dilemma in comparison to what God must see given that he would have the foresight of all the consequences of every immoral act he intervened in. You would probably come to the conclusion that the only way to ensure morality is to make sure that nobody ever did anything wrong - only what you wanted. The very politician like stance of "You can do what ever you want as long as it is exactly what I say". The consequence of intervening always is complete loss of free will and morals (as the moral choice is all there is thus it is just reality). We would be a race of robots just doing exactly what we were programmed to. What is the point of this? Often we say God is Love. Love is FREELY given. I can program a computer to repeat the words "I love you" to me but it is meaningless. A requirement of Love is freedom. A requirement of freedom is not to control everything somebody does (it isn't freedom otherwise).
If God ever does intervene/act he/she/it will do so considering all the consequences of such actions. You over simplified. Those impossible moral dilemmas you probably never have to deal with. God does. Whatever such an entity choses to do is far more informed than your tiny example - there is a bigger picture.
And besides you seem to be a little confused as to what morals are. Where do we get morals? Most atheistic philosophers I've spoken to don't believe in morals (Objective morals) because they've only observed/believe in subjective morals - products of society and TV etc. You seem (Forgive me for any ignorance) to reference objective morals. ie. Killing is wrong - it is not just a matter of opinion. Such objectivity demands a universal moral law to define whether something is right or wrong. A law which no entity under God has any right to define. If God is a creator then he is the only one who can claim objectivity because he defined the objects. ie. If God says it's right it's right and if he says it's wrong it's wrong. For example if you make up a board-game you can make up the rules - what you can and can't do. If you create a universe you can make up all the natural laws and moral laws. Because you are defining all the systems and objects. You seem to speak as if both you and God are aspiring to the same moral code which supersedes both of you. That puts a system/law above God which contradicts the definition of such an entity.
I therefore have to disagree with your conclusion. I would like to know your definition of morals though. You said dogs aren't moral beings (I'm inclined to agree), so what makes us moral beings? And as you believe we are the product of the same natural system when did we evolve morals?
My dog analogy is quite flawed. It was only suppose to show the point that God could impart moral law upon us via his Revelation to us, regardless of us understanding him. Nothing more. I quite happily disown the analogy (Sorry about it!). I think maybe a better analogy (well obviously better) would be that of human parents and children. Children have few morals when they are young. They don't understand why they're parents think things are right or wrong. So parents explain morals to their children in simple language. Children of course still do not understand all the morals imparted upon them but they do follow them - occasionally disobeying (depending on the child). But once some of the reasons for some of the morals make sense children tend to trust that the others are also (until they become teenagers - Please take the analogy for what it means). They trust their parents judgement - that they know more. Voila. Morality transferred to children without understanding the inner working of their parents or even the reason for some morals. This is at least a very similar state to that of between us and God. We can appreciate some Godly morals such as "Thou shall not murder" but maybe not others. We may have to trust that an entity of infinite hindsight is in a better position to see morality then us and trust it. I suspect you will not accept this for a reason at present beyond me (Ignoring disbelief in God). I really need to know what you think morals are and where they come from before commenting. I think I may have portayed what I believe morals are quite well - but that will become clear by your response!
That's all I really disagree with. All I would say in reference to your closing comments:
quote:
To the contrary, I can. Because the alternative means proposing the existence of entities whose existence can't be confirmed or denied in any way. What's the point of that? What's the difference between my model that explains everything naturally, and yours that explains the same things, but adds untestable chocolate sprinkles? The difference is, I don't waste my time with the stuff that I can't know exists, and wouldn't matter if it did. Ockham's Razor, basically.
They are quite admirable. Such a strive for the truth and core of what's going on - I really respect that. The only point I would make is "What is really important in this life? Have you passed it off because it could not be modelled by your techniques?". Not to discourage you in your scientific exploration. The wonders of this universe seem somewhat endless - at least from my perspective. More just to imply maybe there's more to chocolate sprinkles then you ever imagined and that maybe there are other means of exploring them other than science.
Sorry that was so long. It's hard to say everything you want and as it was so long I'm sure there are language errors all over the place! Please be kind in that respect! Thankyou for your time thus far Crashfrog. I look forward to you reply.
[This message has been edited by Dinker, 11-08-2003]
™ Version 4.2